|
|
| say yes to new energy techs, NO to liquid coal fuels |
Message List
|
http://iiic.de/docs/GVShortSummaries1-46a.htm
Gary Vesperman’s compilation of new energy invention summaries.
From: Gary Vesperman
[mailto:garyvesperman@...]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:46
PM
To: Gary Vesperman
Subject: Fwd: Say NO to liquid
coal fuels
It is ludicrous for the feds to spend billions subsidizing liquid coal
fuels, impractical hot fusion, and unsafe expensive nuclear energy, and
not spend one dollar on new energy alternatives. If you
agree, please click on this to send a message to your congressional
representatives. Below is a copy of my comment.
Thanks for helping us all towards cleaner,
safer, and cheaper energy.
Now more than ever, America
needs your leadership to solve global warming and decrease our dependence on
oil. We know we have the technology to create a clean energy future but
making transportation fuel from coal is not the answer. I'm concerned
that efforts in Congress to launch a new liquid industry will compromise our
ability to solve global warming and this industry will damage our land, air and
water. The process of making liquid coal is an expensive, inefficient process
that releases large quantities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into our air.
Fortunately, better, cleaner options already exist to reduce America's
dependence on oil: efficiency, smart growth and renewable fuels.
The considerable economic, social and environmental drawbacks of
coal-derived liquid fuel preclude it from being a sound option to move America beyond
oil. Relying on coal-derived liquid as an alternative fuel to oil could nearly
double global warming pollution per gallon of transportation fuels. For
example, using coal-based transportation fuel in a Honda Civic would mean
doubling the CO2 emissions from that vehicle, which would be equivalent to
operating a Hummer H3
run on conventional gasoline. Moreover, large-scale deployment of
coal-to-liquids would exacerbate the devastating effects of coal mining felt by
communities and ecosystems stretching from Appalachia to the Rocky Mountains, including polluted air and water,
devastated landscapes and a dismal record of worker safety.
We have better options that will produce the quickest, cleanest and
least expensive reductions in oil use. It's time for Congress to put us on a
path to a clean and secure energy future. I urge you to oppose any efforts to
add liquid coal amendments to energy bills that Congress considers this year.
These are some web sites that display energy-related documents I have
written:
These sites describe numerous energy technologies which potentially
would be far more advantageous when subsidized by federal tax money than liquid
fuel from coal.
There are many other energy technologies I don't mention in these sites
which I can suggest researching and even development with federal tax
money.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the federal government
spends BILLIONS on liquid coal fuels, unsafe and expensive nuclear energy,
impractical hot fusion research, and NO money whatsoever on new energy
technologies!
|
"David Crockett Williams" <gear2000@...>
gear2000@...
 Send Email
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Gary,
Have you heard about liquid coal? It's
a transportation fuel made from coal that is expensive,
inefficient, dirty, and releases large quantities of
heat-trapping carbon dioxide into our
air.
Despite these drawbacks, however, Congress is getting ready
to throw huge subsidies at the liquid coal industry instead of
investing those taxpayer dollars in efficient, renewable energy
that will help solve global warming and decrease our dependence
on oil.
Help us tell Congress that liquid
coal is the wrong way to go! Click here to urge your members of
Congress to oppose liquid coal fuels! The considerable economic, social and environmental drawbacks
of coal-derived liquid fuel rule it out as a sound option to
help move America beyond oil. Relying on liquid coal as an
alternative to oil could nearly double global warming
pollution per gallon of transportation fuels! For example, using coal-based transportation fuel in a Honda
Civic would mean doubling the CO2 emissions, which would be
equivalent to operating a Hummer H3 run on conventional
gasoline.* Moreover, large-scale use of liquid coal would exacerbate the
devastating effects of coal mining felt by communities and
ecosystems stretching from Appalachia to the Rocky Mountains,
including polluted air and water, devastated landscapes and a
dismal record of worker safety. There are better, cleaner, quicker, and cheaper ways
to reduce our oil use - it's time for Congress to put us on a
path to a clean and secure energy future. Click here to send your letter to Congress
today urging them to oppose liquid coal! Once you've written your letter, please forward this
message to your friends and family and ask them to join you in
urging Congress to say NO to liquid coal. Thank you for your help on this important issue. Sincerely, Julie Waterman
SaveOurEnvironment.org * According to the Department of Energy
(www.fueleconomy.gov), a Honda
Civic produces 5.5 tons of CO2 per year and a Hummer H3 produces
10.6 tons of CO2 per year. According to Williams et. al.,
Princeton University, coal-to-liquids produces 50 lbs CO2/gal
gasoline equivalent and conventional gasoline produced 25 lbs.
CO2/gal.
Support Our Work - Click here now to make a secure online donation to
help support our efforts to protect our clean water, clean air,
endangered species and wild places.
|
|
This message was sent to garyvesperman@.... Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from SaveOurEnvironment.org, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).
|
|
|
|
|
"Julie, SaveOurEnvironment.org" <action@...>
action@...
Send Email
|
|
Having problems with message search?
